Soft copy - something everyone want...

[Agetan]

Hi all,

I blog about the soft copy challenge.

If you have 5 Minutes to spare, Have a read in my thought on my blog http://www.tomato.sg/blog/softcopy-what-it-means/

Finding a balance between products and soft copy will help a business to flourish for those who can see the long term.

If you have any thought, please share it here and let's discuss.

Hart

 

[kandinsky]

That's a brilliant way of putting your point across. :thumbsup:

Along the same line of thought on soft copies, read this piece last night by a photographer speaking out about his concern of clients modifying images via popular photo filter apps.

After just a couple of minutes of this, something I had known quite well for years suddenly became clearer than ever: photographer's images are routinely modified by their clients, with the various filters and image manipulation tools Instagram offers, before they post them. I decided I was going to do what little I could do to speak out against it that afternoon because, by golly, I was all self righteous at that moment, and I was going to be heard. Well, at least on my Facebook anyway.
So I took action. What I did was, I created a simple side-by-side graphic, using my own image and a representative "Instagram'd" version of the same image (which I created in Photoshop), and then posted it to my Facebook page with [what I thought] was a firm yet reasonable plea to the Facebook world. It was a simple message, asking clients to stop modifying photographer's images without their consent and then posting them on the internet, thus misrepresenting said photographer's work to the public. I felt content with what I had, and modestly relieved to have spoken my mind.

This is the side-by-side image I posted:

Disclaimer: The above images are my own, copyright Nino Batista Photo, depicting my original final photo and my own depiction of what the typical Instagram-like modifications to an image can look like. The model in this photo, Aneta Kowal, did *NOT* modify my shots of her.

https://fstoppers.com/editorial/copyrights-and-consideration-do-your-clients-know-34976

 

[Agetan]

That's a brilliant way of putting your point across. :thumbsup:

Along the same line of thought on soft copies, read this piece last night by a photographer speaking out about his concern of clients modifying images via popular photo filter apps.

That is another issue for photographer... it may seems that we are a control freak, but all we really want is our vision is not being altered.

Regards,

Hart

 

[raptor84]

I tend to release the higher res soft copies only when the client meets a minimum prucase amount or already has the product with the associated image It's quite hard to not offer any soft copies in this current busniess climate.

 

[sjackal]

Depending on genre of work.

 

[raptor84]

Think it really depends on your client base and branding lor. I see digital files as a value add rather than end product for my portrait clients. Weddings/events/commercial of course in the end its just digital files lor.

 

[sjackal]

Also market norm.

If you are doing commercial work, clients hired you specifically for the high res digital TIFF/JPEG, it is unspoken and understood across. Insisting they print at your end would not be feasible, for you may not be able to handle that scale or volume. And also, images can be subjected to further editing by the client's part, maybe by another professional, just not you, for your image may just form a part of a combined visuals. Sometimes we have to think beyond just ourselves and consider what combined collaboration between different industry experts can achieved ultimately for the client.

I understand for retail portraits when your customer is a private person and the service is for personal consumption, that can work.

 

[photogenius]

thats a good read

 

[Agetan]

I believe everything can be managed. The only question is how much your client need you.

I agree with Sjackal, in commercial shoot, sometimes it is out of the photographer's control, but they can be pretty sure that those commercial people know something about getting the printing to the reasonable quality as this effect their brand image. So in these is not so much an issue.

The printing-issue usually is in the consumer-end.

Regards,

Hart

 

[ellery]

In a commercial shoot situation, prices are adjusted to cover this. The files are the product the client wants from the photographer not your retouching skills which they are not buying. In 100% commercial work now the clients want camera raw, their DI people will take it from there. It is educational to be able to view the process after the files leave the photographer. There are 2 aspect we as photographers are concerned about - loss of income and brand impact. In commercial work - there is no brand impact as no client ever gives credit to photographer and what's more you can not right claim credit as the image used finally will have gone through so much DI work that it looks nothing like your original. If you priced it right a commercial job will be a loss of income situation.

 

[Snapzzzz]

My 2 cents worth:

In Hart's case, I thought it will be good if a thumbnail printout is offered with the soft copy. The image is most likely going to show up differently on different computer screens anyway, so majority of clients wouldn't know what is the print result they should be achieving. Advise the clients if they are to be printing the image somewhere else, then achieving a duplicate of the thumbnail will be optimum. To get the best return for their investment in the photoshoot, they will most likely strive to achieve the result of the thumbnail, trusting the photographer's view as most artistic and professional, thus keeping close to the photographer's ideal. If they can't get a good printout anywhere else, then they'll know who to look for.

In Nina's case, if the images belongs to the photographer, then the model should be made to understand they shouldn't edit the images. But if the client paid for the production of the images, then they do whatever they want to them. If the photographer feels that the edited images is not a proper representation of their work, then don't mark the images with their logo so no one knows who took them. Personally, I felt a 'strategically placed' mark in the middle of a perfectly beautiful image is an eyesore, aimed at pulling attention to the photographer's mark instead of purely portraying the image. I feel these marks should only appear on the photographer's portfolio, but not on paying clients' images, because it don't make sense for photographers to 'advertise' on a paying client's property.

The above are just my personal views. I respect that views differ according to situations. There ARE clients who want people to know who produces their images.

 

[JasonB]

In a commercial shoot situation, prices are adjusted to cover this. The files are the product the client wants from the photographer not your retouching skills which they are not buying. In 100% commercial work now the clients want camera raw, their DI people will take it from there. It is educational to be able to view the process after the files leave the photographer. There are 2 aspect we as photographers are concerned about - loss of income and brand impact. In commercial work - there is no brand impact as no client ever gives credit to photographer and what's more you can not right claim credit as the image used finally will have gone through so much DI work that it looks nothing like your original. If you priced it right a commercial job will be a loss of income situation.

It depends and varies also. The more repute and defined style the photographer has, the more likely the post editing will be done by the photographer's side (may not necessary be him, but his staff) and charged accordingly higher.